Dharma

a thing is "parallel" only if it can be proven that that :

1) there was NO Syrian/Zoarastrian influence on Judaism or Jewish mysticism in the middle east from around 500 bce, the time most scholars agree the book of Daniel and Ezekiel were written.


However, this is NOT the case -- these books were written during the Persian empire. The concepts of heaven and hell were very underdeveloped in Judaism as taught in the Torah -- but quite well developed in many of the traditions known as the "indo-European" traditions and it was the "Mitanni" who introduced warring chariots and had all thier Gods riding chariots to heavens (1500bce). Also, the Book of Daniel was written in Hebrew and Aramaic -- a Syrian derived language.

http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/daniel.html
Jesus also calls that Daniel a profhtou, or "one who proclaims inspired utterances on behalf of God" (Louw). Prophets weren't necessarily men who only foretold the future, but spoke the inspired words of God. The book of Daniel (composed by the man, the prophet Daniel) itself claims to have been written in the sixth century BC, indirectly. The author places himself in the midst of the exile, during "the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim..., Nebuchadnezzar, ..came to Jerusalem and besieged it." (Dan 1:1) This event we know to have occurred around 605 BC (Baldwin, pg. 17), and this being the earliest chronological event in the book, gives us a general timeframe for reference. The last chronological event written as history (as opposed to prophecy) is "the third year of Cyrus King of Persia," (Dan 10:1) which was 537 BC (pg. 17). This, together with the first date, gives us reason to believe that the book was probably written/compiled, according to the author, sometime quite soon after 537 BC, as he would have been somewhere over eighty years old (pg. 35).


2)Judaism had these concepts in their original holy texts and these were not later added on.

The Torah never refers to "ben Adam" being some sort of heroic figure. Jews don't call themselves "ben Adam", their heroic figure is Abraham and take descent from Abraham NOT Adam. Also the Book of Daniel and Ezekiel were additions to the Tenach and not a part of the Torah, and were written no earlier than during the beginning of the reign of the Persian empire.


However, Indo-Germanics take their descent from "manushya putras" = "sons of Man" as this man is also a legendary heroic figure who always tells the truth, a wise king, first man and immortal.

So the concept of "ben Adam" is directly in contradition of Jewish lineage from Abraham. It was Abraham and not Adam who redeemed the Jews from Adam's fall.- Thus "ben Adam" as a person of "power" is a foreign concept in Judaism that doesn't fit in Judaism.

3) that these new concepts of Judaism necessarily reflects the old understanding.

These new concepts were not readily excepted by Jews. Daniel, Ezekiel and Christ were thought to be in the same line (incarnations), they were pretty much disliked by the orthodoxy.

Dharma

what "ancient Jewish tradition" are you talking about? The Torah is the oldest book in Judaism and is not dated earlier than 1500 bce ( the VEDIC Mitanni were already their in Syria as rulers calling upon their chariot riding Gods). The books of Daniel and Ezekiel were both written during the reign of the Persian Empire.

Are you denying that Judaism initially had no well developed notions of heaven/hell or chariots as being part of Judaism. Chariots were considered a part of the arrogant "ruling classes" by the Jews and was introduced by the Vedic Mitanni. The Jewish savior was not supposed to ride on chariots -- but a donkey.

For you to claim that "chariot riding Gods of Merkavah Mysticism" is Jewish -- you should try to explain the deviation from the "donkey" of the Torah.

History of the middle east is not on the side of people who claim that there is no influence on Judaism -- Jews would have to explain the deviation from the Torah to "chariot mysticism" and the importance of chariots in religious concepts such as heaven and hell in Judaism.

andrewcriddle

I quite agree that the chariot was invented by Indo-Europeans not Jews.

This is a separate question from the connection or lack of connection between the Vedas and other Indian texts on the one hand, and Mekabah mysticism on the other.

Andrew Criddle

Thomas II

Check this out:
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/ref.../merkavah.html

Thomas II

An interesting aspect of "the chariots" is that it relates to a warrior god,
Yahweh Sabaoth, and his holy war...Maybe Jesus entering riding a donkey,besides the scriptural, has the meaning of a peaceful message, not the warrior god of the thousands and thousands of chariots...Not a holy war but a message of reconciliation and brotherhood.
So what about the Inquisition, and the Papal army,the Crusades, and so on and so forth?
:huh:
Seems like Jesus was way ahead of his time, so his time did not recognize his message...
And so we come full circle to the old battlefield...Here we are, once again, in the Battle of the Desert,with the bombs flying and the fire raging...
Nothing has changed...Nothing has changed...

Dharma

It is not just the invention of the chariots, it is the use of chariots as metaphors in their religion. Chariots are a part of the indo-European religion with each of the Gods riding some sort of chariot.

This is NOT the case in Judaism or even most of the middle eastern religions of the time.

Also the "son of Man" (ben Adam) as hero concept is antithesis to the "Abrahamic" tradition.

Thomas II

Spin,
This is another description of the Merkabah UFOs...This thing is wild...
I had no idea these people were so involved with UFOs...
Are you a follower of the Merkabah?

http://www.uforc.com/research121404/...le_120404.html

Thomas II

Spin,
So now I'm reading about this Merkabah because I thought it was related to Kabbalah, which I've always found interesting, when all of a sudden I am reading about Reiki and the Ashtar Galactic Command!...
What's going on?
What is the connection?
http://www.reiki.org/cgi-bin/BBS/Top...g.pl?read=2439

CJD

One more go 'round?

As far as Mark's implied audience is concerned, okay. But this has little effect on my point: that the audience supposedly within earshot of Jesus on the Mount of Olives were his Jewish disciples, and as such, probably understood it in the way I described above. In other words, your comment has more to do with Mark's provenance, which is interesting, to be sure. Also, the "universal analysis" would still have been known to the particular group of Jews supposedly standing atop this rock listening to Jesus — violent tumults, periods of scarcity, and earthquakes were not absent during the period between 30–70 ce.

Okay, but again, this has more to do with the implied audience and provenance, for each of the gospels. Why can't I talk about what the 'real' audience might have thought? Why must I assume they were completely non-existent? An author is telling a story here, and I refuse to play the new critic; that is, I refuse to not look at more than just the text, and this may include some informed guesses about the 'original' audience.

I just cannot agree with this. Even supposing two levels here (the orignial audience and the implied audience), the original context of the HB material is key, which context, by the way, was completely available not only to the supposed original audience, but to the implied one as well (I say this mainly because of the relationship between early Christianity and Judaism). No doubt, reinterpretation was the order of the day. One can't understand Paul and his re-telling of the exodus, for example, without grasping this point. Nevertheless, the selected citation, I daresay, is never employed (in the writings of the NT) without the full text standing behind it, fully intending to give the surrounding instance (wherein the selected citation is used) its full weight and meaning.

This is simply a difference of opinion on how certain early Christian authors employed the TNK. I am saying in this particular instance it was used deliberately and with every intent for it to give its selected use the fullest, Jewish import. Just because modern Christian apologists treat the TNK as if "it doesn't really matter what the original text said, implied, or how it functioned in its original context" does not mean the ancients did the same.

Yes.


I am not at this point stretching "Israel" to mean "all who believe in Jesus the Christ." What I am saying is that obviously the 'original' audience would have understood these things in the fashion I describe above, and the literary (or implied) audience would have had these things available to them, as most Gentile converts to Jesus' way were already god-fearers and proselytes. But this goes beyond the implied audience of Mark anyway, since the other gospels include the same words, and their implied audiences are different indeed.

Oh, they understood it be real, alright. Just not in such a crassly literal way (as if they expected the sun to literally darken, etc.). Again, significant earthly events described with significant cosmological terms. There is precedent. You have none.

I think we can assume both writer and reader had intimate knowledge of said texts, if for no other reason than thinking on what type of people that made up the early Christian community. Moreover, I'm not sure what you're looking for when you say "the writer shows no signs of knowing what the text of Daniel says": a commentary? A parenthetical statement that says what I've been saying all along? Precisely because the author put the "son of man" lingo on Jesus' lips (if you will) tells me he/she knew exactly what the text was about and what it meant for the specific context in which it was quoted.

I couldn't disagree more, and the mere presence of Latinisms, etc., don't prove your point as to whether or not such knowledge of the TNK was available to the implied audience. All it says is, "This gospel was written for people not living in the syro-palestinian levant."

I think you're asking me to believe that Mark was written in a Greco-Roman vacuum. This is covenient, but I can't do it.

How does the Markan usage not reflect early uses?


The 'original' audience most certainly was, and who are you to say that the implied audience didn't have a few in there as well?

Far more than mere imagistic tinsel, the Jewish narrative that stands behind this pericope gives the implied audience (the diaspora/Mediterranean audience, if you like) what they need to understand what YHWH, the one, true god, has done through his messiah, Jesus. 1) They would need to know that YHWH didn't fail in his covenant when (or "since," depending on when you think Mark was written) Jerusalem was destroyed; 2) They would need to know that what YHWH said he was going to do (keep covenant with his people) he did through Jesus, and that the great messianic age has begun; and 3) They would need to know that the prophet who spoke this oracle was vindicated (which prophet, incidentally, they were being called upon to follow).

If the writer didn't give a fig about the Jews/Israel, then he would've had nothing whatsoever to write about.

I have shown ample reasons why they would not have succumbed to the crass literalism so prevalent in modern western culture. Just a cursory glance at the Neve'im would prevent this.

Okay. But this still includes 1) the vindication of the prophet who spoke the oracle (so 'long ago'); and 2) Giving a fig about the Jewish narrative that supports this story.

Except for the fact that the precedent has been established: significant national events were typically described in cosmological terms. I can only respond that you're the one assuming too much. You've shown nothing that demands the first-century reader would have read these things in so literal a fashion.

Herein lies your confusion. As go the Jews, so goes the world. This would have been especially meaningful for those early converts who understood themselves to be a continuation of Israel (not substitute, mind you). It is absolutely not about some "universal end times"; it is quite clearly about the Temple destruction. You'll have to do a lot of imagining to get the pericope that contrived.

Best,

CJD

spin

You start off with an audience "supposedly" then you've turned them into a real audience with your "probably". Either try to maintain the notion that we are dealing with a literary text, or go the whole hog and argue for historical content. You can't stand in both worlds.

Where do you get the certainty that they would know when you start with "supposedly" again. This is incoherent to me.

Because we are dealing with a literary effort and we don't seem to be able to get beyond that.

Does our conversation end here? I mean, you going beyond the text without any way of doing so?

You can dare say it, but the taking of texts out of context, which you acknowledge, indicates that there need not be the "full text standing behind it" at all.

Paul is not a reflection on the gospels. We don't know how his literature relates.

Or selected citations from it. There are a few interesting DSS texts of threadings of selected HB citations. This accords with things like the combining of citations such as in Mk 1:2-3. How much of the gospel use of t he HB comes from selected citations?

I don't see any necessity for this. The usual analysis of Mk 13 is that the text rehashes earlier apocalyptic efforts. Mk 13 is quite unlike most of the rest of the book in its style of writing both in content and form, the one basic topic taking up the whole discourse of the chapter.

I don't see any evidence that the Marcan writer had a strong grasp of the HB.

Not a kosher response. Responding so requires the background thought to justify it.

You might say it based on your assumption, but it's time you got beyond assumption, isn't it?

This is a little too shorthand for me. Could you expand so I can understand your thoughts, please?

They think it's real, but not literal. Why not? They knew what eclipses were, though not how it worked exactly. You take an eclipse and extend it for a non-scientific person and you get the sun turning black. I guess you are retrojecting your own expectations on the reading audience.

You can think what you want, but the thoughts are unwarranted.

Precisely because they writer did so shows that the writer was not dealing with the text of Daniel. Daniel doesn't deal with anything more than a descriptive term reflecting the usage still current in Judea in the DSS era.

To whom the values of the Roman coins had meaning, who understood what a praetorium was as an explanation for aulh in Mk 15.

Greco-Roman, yes. Vacuum, no.

It is always used as a descriptive title in the third person, by the apparent referent.

To who was 7:3-4 written? Did Jews need such an explanation? I'd say certainly not.

You've gone w-a-a-y-y beyond the evidence here.

The writer writes in a literary and cultural context. The nascent religion has some of its strongest roots in Judaism. Your conjecture is unfounded.

You've changing audience and then making assumptions upon them without knowing.

Who, other than you, has said anything about a prophet in the chapter we are analysing?

If I understand correctly, you are referring to various presages, but give no evidence to suggest that these were not taken literally by their respective audiences.

Once one removes the set occasion for the giving of the apocalypse, the temple basically disappears from sight and we are in universal contexts which include the proclamation to all nations, apostles testifying before kings and governors. The best that can be related to the temple by you is the decontextualised comment about the desolating sacrilege. So, I see you continually going beyond the text without justification.


spin